Paul D. Murphy wrote:﻿
What a bunch of BS. Microsoft can no more license the look and feel of thier UI than Ford can license the look and feel of the GT. You can license the icons, you can license the code; you can't simply state this layout belongs to me and anyone who wants this
layout needs my license.

For about 10k I can by a 3rd party shell to fit on a car chasis that will make my car look like a Ford GT. I have no love for the Open Office crowd, but I hope to God they release a ribbon just to challenge you guys on this draconian and absurd move.

I'm a big Microsoft fan, but this is nonsense.

Paul

IIRC, yes you can. Apple does it, MS does it, you can do it.

You are just flat wrong dude. You can license code. You can license copy. You can license icons. You can license all kinds of things that are tangible. You can't simply say 'blue tabs belong to me' so sign my license if you want blue tabs.

The whole program is designed to license the document describing the design guildelines. This is fine. Microsoft can license thier guidelines all day long. That doesn't preclude me from making a ribbon like control that looks, feels and operates exactly like
the ribbon found in office. By agreeing to the guildelines, I would put myself on the legal bubble with Microsoft. I am free to not license the guidelines and build ribbons till I'm blue in the face so long as my code doesn't violate any patent or copyright
held by Microsoft.

It sounds like Microsoft is trying to say "we own anything that looks or feels like a Ribbon" which they can't do. If you want to make a ribbon go ahead. If you want to make a ribbon and put it onto a word processor that you wrote go ahead. Unless you infringing
on Microsoft patents or thier copyright you are free to do that.

What a bunch of BS. Microsoft can no more license the look and feel of thier UI than Ford can license the look and feel of the GT. You can license the icons, you can license the code; you can't simply state this layout belongs to me and anyone who wants this
layout needs my license.

For about 10k I can by a 3rd party shell to fit on a car chasis that will make my car look like a Ford GT. I have no love for the Open Office crowd, but I hope to God they release a ribbon just to challenge you guys on this draconian and absurd move.

I've been saying for years the only feasible technical solution to the Windows Anywhere vision is to effectivly pump the LPC over port 80. It's good to see more evidence of that in this latest batch of videos.

They DID NOT put http.sys in the Win2k3 kernel for 'performance' reasons like make webpages faster. They put it there for 'performance' reasons like make an internet accessible message loop.

It can't be too hard to write a hello world box and hit the obfuscate button....

Please get on with it.

Sure. I'll send you something later today. I don't have a commercial obfuscator, as I'm not trying to hide any of my code from myself. Like I said before, this is a hobby for me. I don't actually sell anything. As soon as one of these component developers I
know pop up on line, I'll get them to run a project of mine through thier tools.

I am saying you shouldn't use that code in ANY enviroment. And as a lot of 'noobies' will take example code, mess with it and use it as their own, these people will end up releasing very insecure systems.

if you want to see something that's nearly uncrackable or un reversable for C++ code, or very hard, try aspack, or pe crypt or one of the russian derivatives. The more obscure the harder it will be to get by.

That's not what we are talking about beer. We are talking about your statement stating that you can 'take' the source to an obfuscated .net assembly and recompile it as you see fit with your own enhancement. Everyone agrees C++ code is hard to reverse engineer.

For those who don't know, let me translate, "I just stuck my foot in my mouth big time, so I'm going to try and change the subject so no one notices".